Harnessing positivity at workplace from perception to action

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 40 ( 2012 ) 557 – 564

doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.230

The 2012 International Conference on Asia Pacific Business Innovation &

Technology Management

Harnessing Positivity at Workplace from Perception to Action

Abu Mansor, N.N

a

, Syeda Shabana Kirmani

b

Huam Hon Tat

c

Mohamed,

Azzman

d

a

Senior Lecturer, Department of HRD, 81310 Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia b

Assistant Professor, International Islamic University Islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan c

Senior Lecturer, Department of HRD, 81310 Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia d

Vice President Business Development, Danga Bay, Malaysia, Iskandar Development Management Services

Abstract

This paper looks into the competitive organizational edge that organisational citizenship behaviours (OCB) create and attempts to answer why some organizations are high performers and others are not. Inspired by the positive psychology movement [1] the study explores the psychological processes that lead to OCBs by developing a conceptual framework of progressive stages of employee-organization relationship shaped by employees’ perceptions of organizational support, evaluation of organizational self-worth, development of positive psychological resources, positive in-role behavior and finally organizational citizenship behaviors. The study observes OCB as a higher order organizational behavior which is proposed to be the concluding stage in the conceptual framework and occurs only after the successful fulfillment of the prerequisites of the lesser order organizational behaviors. The extent literature has been searched and case studies of high performing fortune 100 firms were examined viewing the employee-organization connection as a progressive multistage relationship. The framework is backed up by three supporting theories- Social Exchange Theory, Organizational support Theory, and Broaden and Build Theory. Both theory and empirical research affirms that OCB is potentially a higher order behavior and signals concluding stage of employee positive organizational experiences. It is also affirmed that positivity has a spillover effect and can be harnessed by understanding the dynamics of psychological processes that shape employees’ perceptions and actions. Additionally it supports the proposition that positive self-evaluation and positive organizational behaviors have diminishing effects on counterproductive employee behaviors.

Business Innovation and Technology Management Society (APBITM).”

Keywords: Positive Psychology Movement (PPM), Perceived Organizational Support (POS), Core Self Evaluation (CSE), Positive Organizational Behavior (POS), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), Social Exchange Theory (OST), Organizational Support Theory (OST), Broaden and Build Theory (BBT).

(2)

1. Introduction to the Framework for Positive Organization

Organizations need positive employees who thrive with confidence, hope, resiliency and optimism even in the most turbulent times. In today’s rapidly changing work environment, characterized by market instability, turbulent political-economic conditions, terrorism, wars and natural disasters, fueled by ever emerging globalization issues, the need to develop positive minded employees possessing greater confidence, resilience, hope and optimism and a nourishing workplace environment has emerged more than ever before [49]. Therefore, basic purpose of this study is to develop better understanding of cause-effect relationship of organizational support on the employees’ workplace perceptions, emotions and behaviors to develop a framework that could help building positive, valuable and enduring employee-organization relationship.

This is explored by testing a) whether the effects of perceived organizational support with the mediation of core self-evaluation and positive organization behavior produce organizational citizenship behaviour? b) whether perceived organizational support, core self-evaluation, positive organizational behavior, and organizational citizenship behavior are developed in a sequential order corresponding with specific organizational outcomes?; and c) whether the employees with positive CSE are high performers and whether the high performers show high level of OCBs and eliminate counterproductive behaviors?

Building on [2] that the organizational effectiveness and performance depends upon three fundamental components of employees’ behaviors, including; a) staying with the organization; b) successful accomplishment of in-role jobs; c) readily indulging in extra-role activities, the study develops its framework of positive organization. This study views these processes in a progressive order and establishes the link with four selected variables of the study. The proposed framework is supported by three corresponding theories- Social Exchange Theory (SET) [3], Organizational Support Theory (OST)[4], and Broaden and Built Theory (BBT)[5][6].

The stages pertain to employees’ experiences, emotions and actions at workplace. The first stage refers to the employee stay with the organization, where the employee interactions and experiences with the organization develop his perceptions and emotions about the organization and are termed as perceived organizational support (POS) which is the independent variable in this study. The OST suggests that employees’ perceptions of organizational support depend upon the quality of treatment that an organization extends towards its employees.

The second stage refers to the two sub stages linking CSE and POB- the two mediating variables in the framework. At this stage first the employee evaluates his organizational self-worth which results in his building psychological capital. At an individual level positive perception of organizational support will result in positive evaluation of worth or high core evaluation (CSE) in terms of enhanced esteem, efficacy, internal locus of control and reduced neuroticism. Secondly the positive self-evaluation subsequently results in high in-role performance or positive organizational behaviors (POB). In terms of reciprocity norm and social exchange, employees who believe that their organization values them and cares for their well-being are more likely to feel a sense of obligation toward the organization and, therefore, to reciprocate the favorable treatment with high in-role performance, increased loyalty and commitment [7].

(3)

support, positive self-evaluation, positive organizational behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors is believed to be contagious in nature and proposed to have diminishing effects on the dysfunctional, counterproductive and negative emotions and behaviors barricading employees from achieving organizational goals [10, 50].

2. The Proposed Framework of Positive Organization

Fig 1 Framework for positive organization

The study proposes that high POB and CSE of employees translate into high in-role performance which is their core-job. Once they achieve their core performance objectives, they strive to indulge in OCBs to further support and enhance organizational performance and effectiveness. This important distinction is made on two assumptions; first that stimulated by POS, employees with high POB and CSE would most likely to prioritize between their in-role and extra-role behaviors. It is more logical that being under obligation to respond positively they will focus what is most important for the organizational effectiveness and this would direct them to first attend to their core-jobs or in-role jobs. Once they accomplish their in-role goals, they will be attending to their extra-role jobs or OCBs more positively and confidently. And this may be viewed as spill over effects of positivity in terms of positive work experiences, positive states and positive behaviors at work place.

(4)

positive organizational behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors as the final outcomes or concluding stage of this relationship and propose this framework to harness positivity at workplace.

The study examines the mediating effects of core self-evaluation on the relationship between perceived organizational support and positive organizational behaviors and then the mediating effects of positive organizational behaviors on the relationship between core self-evaluation and organizational citizenship behaviors. The basic assertion of this study is that POS produces OCBs only when employees have positive work behaviors and positive core self evaluation. The study also suggests that positive CSE and POB have diminishing/reducing effects on counterproductive work behaviors.

Thus the present study has the following objectives to pursue; a) whether the effects of perceived organizational support with the mediation of core self-evaluation and positive organization behavior produce organizational citizenship behavior and b) whether perceived organizational support, core self-evaluation, positive organizational behavior, and organizational citizenship behavior are developed in a sequential order corresponding with specific organizational outcomes and c) whether the employees with positive CSE are high performers and whether the high performers show high level of OCBs and eliminate counterproductive behaviors?

3. Key Constructs

3.1.Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

POS indicates that “employees develop beliefs about the degree to which the organization gives importance to and value their role by taking care of their interest and welfare” [11]. It has been a producer of optimistic employee attitudes and behaviors at work place with high job satisfaction, organizational commitment and intention to stay at work [7]. POS is extensively researched in terms of its relationship with numerous job-outcomes.

3.2.Core Self-Evaluation (CSE)

[12] defined core self-evaluation as “basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about themselves”. Bono and Judge observe that core self-evaluation is a multidimensional construct having high order traits of self-esteem, locus of control, emotional stability and generalized self-efficacy that are greatly interlinked. These traits are correlated with job satisfaction and job performance and can potentially predict both (Bono). A number of constructs are related to CSE indicating strong relationship between CSE and various individual and organizational outcomes. The CSE has been found highly linked with employee workplace attitudes and behaviors and has significant impacts on Job satisfaction (Bono), [13][14][15][16][17][18] [19], commitment [20], motivation [16], goal commitment [16], self-concordant goals [21], stress [22], job performance [23], leadership [24], and happiness and life satisfaction [25]. But up till now no study has tested CSE as a mediator between POS and POB and POS and OCB.

3.3.Positive Organizational Behaviors (POB)

(5)

and resiliency with job satisfy action, work commitment, and work happiness [30], positive leadership and authentic leadership [32] [33] [34], LMX [32], positive leadership [35], transformational leadership [36][37], altruistic leadership [38] and charismatic leadership [39], follower job satisfaction and performance [40], organizational performance [41] [42]. Positive relationship is observed between organizational outcomes and generalized optimism with greater expectancy for future success, coping stress, job-satisfaction, and job-performance during and after downsizing [43] building future capacity for rapid recovery after organizational tragedy like shooting [44].

3.4.Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organ defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” [3][45]. [46] later modified his earlier definition of OCB and incorporated features of Contextual performance [47] redefining OCB as “contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of social and psychological context that support task performance”. OCB is a distinct and higher order behavior which is a result of employees’ positive workplace experiences, in turn produce positive core self-evaluation, promotes positive psychological capital, and are demonstrated through positive organizational behaviors. At a higher level these positive experiences, positive core self-evaluation, positive psychological capital and positive organizational behaviors accumulate in a higher order behavior – called organizational citizenship behavior. Numerous studies have suggested that OCB is significantly related to employee workplace affective states, attitudes and behavior and thus is a significant indicator of individual and organizational performance [48].

4. Methodology

The sample data is to be collected from three service sectors of education, banking, and telecom including private and public organizations in Pakistan. Data analysis will be done by using SPSS software applying multivariate hierarchical linear model (MHLM).

5. Conclusion

By examining the extent literature it is concluded that both theory and empirical research support the basic assertion of this study that OCB is a higher order behavior which signifies a concluding stage of employee positive perceptions of organizational support, positive core self-evaluation, and positive organizational behavior. POS produces OCBs only when employees have accomplished the targets of their in-role performance. It also support the notion that positivity is potentially self-sustainable as the employees positive experiences generate a desire for maintaining and sustaining positive workplace climate, which establishes an on-going cycle of reproduction of positive workplace perceptions, emotions and behaviors that eventually become incorporated and internalized in the workplace environment. The study also suggests that positive CSE and POB have diminishing reducing effects on counterproductive work behaviors. In short the literature clearly highlight that efforts to improve organizations can be more fruitful and less taxing if the dynamics of employee-organization relationship are managed with the application of positive approaches and processes. The study concludes that organizations need to create positively interdependent employee-organization relationship through care and respect and expect the same in return.

(6)

of this study in a progressive-stage model of emotions and actions in an organizational context; and iii) the study proposes to test this framework in a non-western country that may add new cultural and geographical perspective to the existing body of knowledge on positive organizational behavior.

References

[1]Seligman, MD., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14

[2]Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1996). "The Social Psychology of Organizations." New York: Wiley.

[3]Blau,P.(1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

[4]Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71(August), 500–507.

[5]Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn

(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 164–175). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

[6]Cameron, K.S., and Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 731-739.

[7]Lee, J. & Peccei, R. (2007). Perceived organizational support and affective commitment: the mediating role of organizational-

based self-esteem in the context of job insecurity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 661-685.

[8]Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior: Reciprocity or ‘it’s my job?’ Journal of Management Studies, 41, 85–106.

[9]Carpzano R, Mithell. S, 2005; Social Exchange Theory; An Interdisciplinary Review Journal of Managemen t, Vol. 31 No. 6,

December 2005 874-900

[10]Fox,S., Paul E. Spector and Don Miles, (2001); Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) in Response to Job Stressors and

Organizational Justice: Some Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy and Emotions, Journal of Vocational Behavior 59, 291–

309 (2001)

[11]Rhoades, L, and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.

[12]Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., and Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations

approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

[13]Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2005). Do the traits self-esteem, neuroticism,locus of control, and

generalized self-efficacy indicate a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.

[14]Judge, Van Vianen, and De Pater (2004). Emotional Stability, Core Self-Evaluations, and Job Outcomes: A Review of the Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research. Human Performance, 17(3), 325–346.

[15]Judge, T. A., and Heller, D. (2002, April). The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: An integrative test. In R. Ilies & T. A. Judge (Chairs), Dispositional influences on work-related attitudes. Symposium

presentation at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Meetings, Toronto.

[16]Erez, A., and Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270–1279.

[17]Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E.,and Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.

[18]Judge, T. A., Erez, A.,and Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187.

[19]Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., and Kluger,A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The

role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

[20]Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Pucik V, Welbourne TM. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.

(7)

[22]Best, R. G. (2003). Are self-evaluations at the core of job burnout? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State

University.

[23]Judge, T. A., and Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized

self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

[24]Eisenberg, A. P. (2000). The search for integrity: A leadership impact study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, DePaul

University.

[25]Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., and Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of selfesteem,neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of acommon core construct?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.

[26]Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.

[27]Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23:

695-706

[28]Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In K. S. Cameron and J. E.

Dutton and R. E. Quinn (Eds.). Positive Organizational Scholarship, 241-261. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

[29]Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. 2004. Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in

people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143–160.

[30]Luthans, F., and Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33:321-349

[31]Debra L.Nelson, Cary L.Cooper; (2007) Positive Organizational Behavior. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[32]Bruce J. Avolio*, William L. Gardner, Fred O. Walumbwa, Fred Luthans, Douglas R. May (2004). Unlocking the mask: A

look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 15, 801–823. [33]William L. Gardner, John R., & Schermerhorn JR. (2004). Unleashing Individual Potential: Performance Gains through

Positive Organizational Behavior and Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 270–281.

[34]May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T., andAvolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260.

[35]Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., and Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). "Can you see the real me?" A

self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

[36]Gooty J, Gavin M, Johnson PD, Frazier ML, Snow DB. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder:Transformational leadership,

positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 353–367.

[37]Peterson, S.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Byron, K., and Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational

leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348–368. [38]Sosik, JJ; Jung, D; Dinger, SL (2009). Values in Authentic Action: Examining the Roots and Rewards of Altruistic

Leadership. Group and Organization Management; 34(4), 395-431.

[39]Glynn and Dowd. (2008). Charisma (Un)Bound; Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science. 44(1), 71.

[40]Walumbwa et al. (2008). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust;

Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organization Behaviour. 32, 4–24 .

[41]Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Schriesheim, C. A., and Dansereau, F. (2008). Authentic leadership and positive organizational behavior: A meso, multi-level perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 693–707.

[42]Ramlall, S. (2004). A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention within

Organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5 (1/2), 52-6.

[43]Armstron-Stassen and Schlosser (2008). Taking a Positive Approach to Organizational Downsizing. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. 25(2).

[44]Powley and Piderit (2008). Tending Wounds : Elements of the Organizational Healing Process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , 44,134.

(8)

[46]Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct cleanup time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. [47]Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance.

In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel Selection In Organizations (pp. 71–98). San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [48]Jordan and Sevastos (2003). Role of Stress and Organizational Support in Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behavior :

The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior.

[49] Chen, Y.H., Tseng, M.L.*, Lin, R.J., (2010). Evaluating the customer perceptions on in-flight service quality. African Journal of Business Management 5(7), 2865-2873

[50] Lewicka, D. (2011). Creating Innovative Attitudes in an Organization – Comparative Analysis of Tools Applied in IBM